tv [untitled] January 28, 2011 11:30pm-12:00am PST
floors still potentially being a separate unit is still a possibility in terms of even if it has been corrected. what's at the core of my question and we are not here to redesign the bell -- building in that sense, the bedrooms are so small that they're almost ubstandard so i -- subsurround so i have a hard time that somebody wants to move in with this aspiration for their family and the bedrooms are really not set up that way and then i find the building itself from what it is and what it tends to become, very large, what's called a breakfast nook and downstairs only accessible by stairs going through the bell, very large exercise room, somehow kind of doesn't feel balanced for me. i'm more struggling with the question about what i'm supposed to decide on because in principle i would say that the
building as proposed looks very large to me. architecturally, i find the little faux tilted pizza facade a little bit not credible. the general expression in the neighborhood is kind of a cubic expression which i find very pleasing. however, in the addition of the building that has not been addressed makes it to my eyes look quite awkward. president olague: commissioner sugaya? commissioner sugaya: yes. to project designer, could you answer a question for me. we've all been talking about the first floor and where the garage is and i'm having a difficulty interpreting your plan. if you come in the -- if you come in the front door between the planters, then when you go
to the right, you can go into the garage and if you go forward you can go through the laundry and then into the game room and those are all at one level. then to the left would be the door that leads to the second floor. so you have the stair way there labeled as down and i believe that should be up. is that correct? >> i don't have the plans in front of me but that may be true. the stairway, there's a landing midway up where you can either go back down towards the front door or you can go back down towards the first floor unit farther in the back. >> commissioner sugaya: . o.k. i see.
>> the design team asked us to leave the front the way it the s to leave it the way it was. >> i am not questioning that. i'm trying to figure out how the design works. if this passes, and the like to have notice of special restriction. president olague: commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: i guess i have the same concerns. it looks like he could enter the first floor with the garage independent from the rest of the house, which is generally where we want to have that entrance eliminated so you cannot use it as a second unit and you have to come into the house on the entry floor, which is the second floor, and go downstairs. i think that is what i would like to see changed in the plan so that it discourages the possibility of anybody using it as a separate unit because it is supposed to be a single-family
residence. president olague: -- commissioner moore: the other thing that leads to that, it has a bathtub and it next to the game room. commissioner antonini: that could be made into a half baths. president olague: is that a motion? commissioner antonini: let me move it, not take the art and approved. entrances to the first floor -- take d.r., and eliminate entrances to the exterior from the first floor, other than the garage door or the cars, man, and turn the bathroom there into a half bath. since nobody is living down there, presumably, there should be no need for to be a full bath and we could approve it with those changes. president olague: is there a
second? commissioner moore: commissioner antonini, if i could carry that thought, ascii to look at the drawing, behind the front, behind the shingle portion of the facade, bair is a suggested additional balcony -- there is a suggested additional balcony. having a full tilt facade and potentially derailing of a balcony at rising behind it i think will impact this. it looks difficult in the context of the rest of the design, and i don't think that question is fully resolved. there is something that is not quite work. in order to protect the roof, you have to basically use a solid element to close that the roof that sits on top of the room below it. so you have basically a vertical expression there which
is solid, and i am not comfortable with that. i think it makes the building looked even more awkward. commissioner antonini: what is your suggestion? commissioner moore: i do not have an answer. that is a question of really understanding the sensitive nature of the architectural expression of the top roof. i don't have an answer, but somebody has to look that because what we're seeing here is pretty much what we would be getting. it is not the required railing that you would normally want from whatever. commissioner sugaya: could we add to the motion that project sponsor would work with staff to address the balcony situation and the way it expresses itself in the front? commissioner moore: did you also need to ask how it tracks to the side. that same railing turns and meets another. there is the height of the
railing, drops onto the roof, then you have to tilt it roof. i cannot answer that. but there is something there which i think really requires some architectural sensitivity, which at this moment is not there. commissioner sugaya: i think it is the way the sloping part at the front abruptly ends in what looks like a little parapet. i don't think it works. president olague: so we have an attempt at a motion. i am not sure if we add language to that. commissioner sugaya? commissioner sugaya: were we all in agreement with that? president olague: pretty m uch. commissioner sugaya: i think it is a matter of working with the designer and staff. i think staff knows the direction we're going and. did we also, in the
presentation, i am sorry, i might have missed it, but is there a railing in the rear balcony now or is that a solid wall? commissioner moore: there it is a really now, as the drawing shows. it gotbaum -- there is a railing now, as the drawing shows. commissioner sugaya: as a side comment, i think it would have been nice to have more information about the relationship between the existing and additional, the proposed addition with the typography on the site. -- with the typography on the site. it is difficult to understand how the building sits relative to the very steep hillside at a berkeley starts in the rear yard. -- that abruptly starts in the rear yard. commissioner moore: i have only
an idea which addresses the front elevation. if you look at 6.7, you can see how the shingled roof meets the existing roof line. you see that? and what could happen in that particular place is to keep the balcony user away from the edge. you could actually introduced a planter or something like that, which creates greenage rather than a somewhat awkward additional rising mask. i am not here to design this. but it has to be detailed any manner that creates a credible transition of that shingled roof to the new proposed balcony. cannot be evident. commissioner antonini: i like
that suggestion about the plant there. -- i like the suggestion about the planter. president olague: so the motion? commissioner antonini: we will take the are, and we will modify the project to eliminate any entries from to the outside from the first floor. we're going to change the bath on the first floor from a full bath to a half bath by eliminating what appears to be a bathtub, and we're going to ask staff to work with project sponsor to provide a better terminus to the deck on the front, both on the side and the front aspect, possibly with the use of pointers -- planters. commissioner moore: i want to say something after the motion. commissioner borden: i will
second. commissioner antonini: and we would take a notice of special restrictions. commissioner moore: i will wait until after the motion. that there is a motion and second to take d.r. and approve the project as modified. [roll call vote] so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously, 6-0. president olague: commissioner moore? commissioner moore: i would like to use this as an example of the type of submission we cannot accept. that took quite an extended amount of time to even understand what is implied, and i would like to support the director and staff to start to
advance what is the minimum expectation. i am glad that product -- project architect deliver this today. i understand we are not practicing in the city of san francisco, but we would expect a standard, time to submit information and we work together with staff. president olague: i think that is the reason the staff created the abbreviated d.r. that if we want to make it a regular d.r., then we would do that. but that was kind of the idea behind it. commissioner moore: but you realize there is a missing link care. president olague: commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: i understand the abbreviated d.r. to save time and cost, but if they are saying that it cries
out -- that it rises to the standard, they have to make this modifications so the product that comes to us is acceptable. we all know about the lower floor matrix and these other things we have been falling quite a few years. that needs to be done and that we move it through. commissioner moore: i fully agree. the more clear the package, the more full support, and this package left a lot. commissioner miguel: i have discussed with the director and staff the last six months the possibility of more standardization and the absolute statement that packets should be sent directly back to the architects, designers, anyone else who submits them if it does
not meet the minimum standards, which have to be increased in order to give us some type of information that we deserve if we're going to hear these projects. i see no reason why it cannot be done. there should be a standard format, standard requirements of minimal nature for these types of projects. obviously, on large office buildings, large complicated projects, it goes far beyond that, but those are not the ones we have problems with most of the time. it is on these projects we have problems with, six units and less. so we change it and it the submitted product i think is in front of us, hopefully soon. >> commissioners, if i could remind you, you are speaking to a non agenda item. it should be discussed during
the commissioner comments. president olague: commissioner sugaya? commissioner sugaya: i was just going to say to the members of the audience, you don't have to stick around, this is a commission discussion. >> maybe it we could speak under public comment. commissioner sugaya: we have just been talking about the fact that we should calendar the item. just a reminder./ >> you are now on public comments. i have no speaker cards. president olague: is there any general public comment. it has to be on anything not on the agenda. >> i think it would be quite helpful for all parties concerned. we rely heavily on staff as to what we need to present, what is acceptable to you, when are you looking at, what are the issues.
we come at a lot of times not knowing and have to rely that this is ok, and it turns out it is not ok. i think we're going into this with good faith that this is the product that you need, this is the product we will produce, but we need to know what it is. there should be a standard by which we can meet. if we are told this is fine and it is not, we need 24 hours to produce a product that is somewhat acceptable, that puts stress on everybody and is not fair to anybody. i appreciate commissioner moore's comments on this and i hope that you give the public the opportunity to give you what they want, because they will if he really -- if they really mean it. president olague: thank you. >> handouts were given to members of the commission. we are not privy to that information. you are looking at something i cannot possibly speak to because we have not had the opportunity
to look at it. perhaps in the future, all exhibits should be given fairly to those of us who will be speaking before use a we have the opportunity to review the affirmation. i pulled off an email maybe an hour before i got here. i have not had a chance to look at this, and i have some comments, and i cannot do that. perhaps in the future, and the exhibit not having been presented "x" number of times before the hearing should be presented. president olague: thank you. any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. and thank you for that comment. commissioner sugaya? commissioner sugaya: just the thought came to mind when the last speaker was presenting her comments. when we get around to discussing this. ok. president olague: the meeting
all property owners are eligible for a temporary, 1-year property-tax assessment reduction if they believe or if we believe dave -- the assess the value has fallen above their market value, which means that the value would be lower than the market value. in general, homeowners who are eligible, chances are, they purchased homes after 2003. we do get applicants who have owned homes since 1995 or earlier. in general, anybody who is owned their home prior to 2003, they are doing well, which is good news. chances are the market value is higher than the assessed value, meaning the property appreciate it. people we are able to offer little relief for, the sad news is, their homes have depreciated. there will be a little bit of relief for them. in general, last year, we saw
6400 applicants in comparison to four years ago when we had 248 requests. the form a simple. it is one page. name, telephone number, e-mail, and the address you are applying for. if you can give us sales in formation of similar types of homes, we do hope you can give us that. if you cannot come maternity leave blank and sign it. e-mail or fax it to us -- if you cannot give us that, leave it blank and sign it. e-mail or fax it was. tenderloin downtown, south of market, mission bay, and south beach. those were many of the new high- rise condominiums that went in to market the last four or five years. we have seen a significant amount of depreciation in those areas. gaviria that has seen the largest value drop is -- the
other area that has seen the largest volume drop is the outer mission, amazon, those areas have seen the largest percentage drop. it is where we have been hit hardest with foreclosures. we make sure that we take an extra look. we proactively have been reviewing every home that was purchased after 2000. even though we think eligibility is for people up to 2003, we review any homeowner who purchased after 2000. that was roughly about 15,000 homeowners. of that, reduced -- no one had to apply or call us. we did this on our own. we reduced 10,000 of those homeowners. roughly, you have 10,000 reductions that we did on our own. 1700 reductions were done through this application process. 5000 time shares is how you get
to the 17,000 number. just to give you a comparison, it is quite a bit in san francisco. these are huge numbers, larger than the dot com bust. alameda and santa clara did about 1000 come a tenfold. -- 1000, tenfold. we are doing better than our counterparts in other parts of the bay area. i feel fortunate. the tax reduction was about 21 million in taxes that were not collected. 21 million in taxes were not collected. that is a significant number. it is out of a $6.5 billion budget. overall, the difference to the city is still rather small compared to what it meant to many of the other counties in other areas. let me stop there and take questions. >> [inaudible]
>> 6462. of those, we actually reviewed only 4177. many of those were already reviewed. we have actively reviewed them. some of them were not eligible. >> [inaudible] >> anybody who has gotten a reduction, they don't need to apply. we will look at it again. if you have gotten a reduction through an appeal or through our office, they don't need to apply again. they will be reviewed. they may want to apply because maybe they want to give us information we don't know. they are free to do that. that will be reviewed as part of that process. in general, they don't need to
submit paperwork if they already got a reduction last year. >> [inaudible] >> well, i think because it is just flat, the market has not rebounded and gone up. we will probably see the same number of people deserve reductions last year. i think it will be comparable. traditionally, an economic recovery is like a v. this is more like a u. we're at the bottom of it right now. my feeling is we are going to see, you know, a very unusual real-estate market in san francisco. it will be flat and not appreciate a whole lot right now. the number people who are eligible is probably similar to last year. i bet we will give about the
same number of reductions this year as we did last year. it will not be that much different. >> [inaudible] >> anybody that was reviewed -- everybody in san francisco got a letter from us in july. they were told what their assessed value was. there were told that they got a reduction. if they got a reduction based on the letter, they don't need to reapply. what people do is we will review applicants. the deadline is march 31. all 17,000 who got reductions will be reviewed automatically. everyone will get notified again in july. we will not talk to anybody prior to that. everyone else will be getting the standard notification in july. >> [inaudible] you review these every year. >> every year. the reductions we review every year. as the market appreciates, we
may take their assessments up based on what the market value is. they may go all the way back up to the factor value. it may go up partially higher. obviously, that is what he would see. you would see a step over the years to include the appreciation based on what the market is feeling. right now, we are not seeing a whole lot of appreciation. chances are, the assessment will be a little bit different than last year. the original purchase applies plus whatever the inflation factor was on an annual basis. in general, up to 2%. we had a negative inflation factor for the first time last year. everybody got a reduction last year. >> [inaudible] >> this year, cpi based on the final number we saw, is. 5% positive. it is still well below 2%.
-- is .5% positive. it is still well below 2%. the economy is still rather flat. >> [inaudible] >> everybody who does not get a reduction will get a .5% increase in their assessment. that is just a proximate. it will probably be pretty close to that. we can show you the website. we follow the same website. it is the state cpi. it is a tracking mechanism for the state. >> [inaudible] >> i think there will vote to finalize in the next month or two. i think the number is done. >> overall, when all is said and done, what is the amount that
you're going to receive [inaudible] >> for reductions, it will really just depend on how much your property might have depreciated or appreciate id. some areas where maybe there was a 5% or 3%, the good news in san francisco, we have not seen a few drops we saw in other parts of the bay area, like solano, or properties dropped 50%. you don't want that. you want your property to appreciate. that is the goal. it might be $50, $100, maybe a few hundred dollars. it and will not be anything huge -- it will not be anything huge. >> [inaudible] >> over last year, it was a $21 million difference. because of the temporary
reductions in homeowners values, there was $21 million that was not collected by the county. let's put that in context of the $6.5 billion budget. >> [inaudible] >> the total property tax collected is about $2 billion. overall, we are doing quite well. >> [inaudible] >> overall, property-tax as have done extremely well the last five, 10 years. we have seen huge increases overall. >> [inaudible] >> no idea. if i did, i should be in las vegas placing a bet, or should be in new york making more money than i am here. the controller's office is probably tracking it more than us.